From the article: "It's true that networking can help you accomplish great things. But this obscures the opposite truth: Accomplishing great things help you develop a network."
This is something that I wished I had understood way earlier in my career. Basically that cause and effect are often inverted when people talk about the network effect. People who do some thing well, or are passionate about, often will accumulate a network of others who are interested in that same thing. And because they know a bunch of people who are also interested in that thing, when they hit a roadblock or a problem they have people they can reach out to for help or insights.
What is hard is discovery which is to say that the greatest programmer in the world who sits in his shack and writes perfect code that is beautiful and functional, is invisible.
There is a joke about the guy who complains "I make no money at all from stocks." and the friend says "What stocks do you own?" and the complainer responds "Oh I don't own any stocks, have no use for them, I just want money from them."
Attention and focus is like 'money from stocks' if you share what you're doing and your understanding with people you give them some advantage and perhaps some new understanding. That advantage comes back in the form of referrals or opportunities that you were not present to see when the person you shared with recognizes an opportunity as something you would be interested in. It also allows you to be "discovered" two or three hops down the road when someone says "Oh I know someone who is interested in that ..."
For most people, it's typically difficult to accomplish great things without mentorship and support. Which, in turn, typically require a network of some kind, whether it be family, teachers and classmates, or professional contacts.
Technology used to be a bit more immune to cronyism in the past, now it's epidemic for anything above grunt positions - for grunts grueling interviews are in place, for higher ups it's now totally who knows whom and who does something for whom. I want to throw up every time my organization posts a new job position at a higher level and I get bombarded by managers inquiring if their friend or two can't get in there, bypassing whoever would be deserving the spot by working at a lower level - frankly, I don't understand how those people can look into a mirror...
It'll always move to "who you know" for the most desirable jobs regardless of industry. The top 5-10% are going to look exactly the same when you have a large number of resumes.
Especially very early in the career. A new grad will have top school, top grades, but one will have worked at McDonald's and the other at Burger King, a third at Wendy's. With people looking so similar, you'll need to decide on less meaningful stuff like who's recommended the applicant and trivia questions. One job I applied to had 1000 resumes, interviews for 100, full day interviews for 25, and hired 2. The 2 had family members who were CEO/Chairman level clients to firm.
For tech, there has been amazing amount of entrepreneurship where meritocracy rules, but for the big organizations it will be "who you know".
Its about whom you can trust to solve problems and decide wisely -- It always has been and until there is a clearly rational way to evaluate trustworthiness to do an ambiguous job, it always will be.
> Technology used to be a bit more immune to cronyism in the past
No, I think this isn't the case. It certainly hasn't in the past couple of decades, unless you're thinking ridiculously further back. Even then, have you ever asked your mates "hey, do you know X, are they any good?"
After giving some examples of very poor networking efforts (if those can even be called that) the author moves on the the banal conclusion that networking is important, too, but you have to have something to say.
Nowadays, when I get a chance to mentor younglings my main point is that networking is a HUGE part of success (other important point being not to waste time on a PhD, but that's another topic). As with any effort you have to learn how to do it, of course. Harassing people for their contact info, etc. is a networking anti pattern.
I agree: the article may well be right that a cold-calling style of 'networking' doesn't do much, but it doesn't seem to have anything to suggest that the good oldfashioned "having the right parents" kind is no good.
Shotgun networking, where you go to meetups just to get as much facetime and intro's as possible but with no real connection to people, is overrated.
But thoughtfully targeted networking where you're able to identify a small number of people who have something of unique value to you, and then bring something of similar value to them, resulting in a potential mutually high-value collaboration, is not overrated.
The author conflates networking with shameless self-shilling. This makes for a pretty thin strawman.
Networking, in the sense of maintaining strong professional relationships and having a presence at professional events, creates a strong passive upwards pressure for someone who is talented. If you "spring to mind" as someone I can trust to "do X," or if you spring into the mind of the person I task with finding someone to "do X," then you are that much more likely to be offered the opportunity to "do X".
You may find the same kinds of "do X" opportunities through other means, but as X becomes increasingly specialized and requires more trust, networking becomes more and more important. For example, I can mass broadcast an ad for entry-level Java developers. I cannot do that to find a systems architect to design a high uptime, low latency, massive throughout web service. I'm likely to go to a short list for the latter and avoid interviews completely, if at all possible.
Obviously accomplishments are important. Accomplishment one of the foundations of a strong professional identity. Without evidence of your abilities, networking won't put you on anyone's short list. That's a catch-22, and you also need luck and the ability to inspire someone to take a chance on you to get your foot in the door. Both of those are improved dramatically by networking.
> The author conflates networking with shameless self-shilling.
I found the same. Cold-calling and party tricks (like dropping businesscards into bags) is not 'networking'. It's one aspect of it, yes, but a minor one.
Not to mention that plenty of us know people who are awesome at their craft, yet never seem to get anywhere with it. Arguing from outliers like major pop stars means nothing for the 'real' people below them.
The thing about networking is that good networking is extremely important, but that's not what "Networking" is.
In every job I have, I try to grab lunch with people everyday so that I can talk to them and get to know them. I also try to regularly meet new people in my field and get to know them. I've found that to be extremely valuable.
However, I've found going to networking events to be an extreme waste of time. The people who go usually aren't the successful professionals, which is who I want to meet. I've found going for drinks with friends- and their friends- to be much more valuable.
How do you become a successful professional if you're never given the opportunity to earn trust where it is also visible enough to develop a strong network?
I don't agree with the article's titular thesis or the rather extreme examples it uses. I attribute the majority of my career success thus far to my ability to make conversation and present my (often highly technical) ideas in an engaging and compelling way. Raw technical ability is excellent, but it's an inefficient method of capturing opportunities.
This article opens with a strong claim and several distasteful examples of desperate behavior associated with networking. But I wouldn't consider those "networking" in the general sense of the word; rather they are one stunt-based manifestation of it. Contrary to the article's point, you do not need to abandon networking to focus on being so good that you're attention getting. The examples given - Bieber and Adele being "found" through raw wow factor - do not resemble the way that networking organically occurs in the real world, and are very dependent on luck. Bieber and Adele would still be impressive successes if they had networked for it, and indeed the article concedes that many successful startup founders had a pre-established network in addition to their skillsets.
I think there's too much baggage attached to the idea of networking. You don't want to try and network as though it is a high-pressure sales tactic. Instead, focus on developing social skills and charisma. You also don't need to wait until you are extraordinary to network with people. There's no guideline for networking because there doesn't need to be one, it arises organically if you talk with people who have the same interests. There's another principle I have found with regards to networking - it is better to prioritize network quantity instead of quality. You want a minimum "quality" per contact, for sure, but you will find that access to extremely high quality contacts emerges in your network once you've hit a critical mass of people you can email on a first name basis (for example). If you're constantly trying to "collect" high-impact contacts without bootstrapping your way towards it organically, you'll be more pressured to pull the inane antics the article talks about.
In other words, and for practical advice: people seriously overthink networking and these examples of e.g. pitching a VC at an open mic event are not examples of organic networking. Just talk to people for the sake of talking to people. I have had incredible opportunities come to me and met awesome people because I wrote insightful Hacker News or reddit comments. Whenever I can I try to email someone who is talking about something I'm interested in.
"Networking makes us feel dirty — to the point that one study found that people rate soap and toothpaste 19 percent more positively after imagining themselves angling to make professional contacts at a cocktail party."
Really? If you're around unpleasant people, sure, but I at least have typically enjoyed meeting new people in the industry. "Networking" is just another word for "having a conversation."
The implication of this piece is unclear to me. Most people, by definition, are average and aren't going to suddenly pop out masterpiece whatevers that bring them fame and fortune. You'd think a little networking wouldn't hurt. It's better than staying at home and staring at the TV, right?
Networking makes us feel dirty — to the point that one study found that people rate soap and toothpaste 19 percent more positively after imagining themselves angling to make professional contacts at a cocktail party.
Tip for writers: if you can use the same data to just as reasonably arrive at the opposite conclusion - "we want to feel clean and presentable before impressing other people" - then don't present your vague conjecture as fact. The article started to lose me as soon as I read this part. It was like a red flag of bad journalism went up.
People who have something to show for themselves find networking easier than people who are faking it? Sure, I believe that, but that's hardly news.
The author uses several musical examples, and I've worked as a professional musician for a long, long time.
Waiting for a music exec or manager to somehow hear your work is a terrible strategy. On average, if you wait around to be discovered, you'll be waiting a long time.
In music, networking is hugely important to being successful. Going to people's gigs, meeting others, and similar was hugely important for me to establish myself as a working musician when I moved across the country last year. But, effective networking is most necessary and productive in "gig" type economies.
In tech, meetups and such aren't always great networking opportunities because the way most technical people collaborate is in the work environment, and most people change jobs rarely. Contrast this with most musical relationships, where it's much easier to exchange information and call a new person for a gig, which happens many times per week usually.
I'm sensitive to this because early in my music career, I severely undervalued the value of networking, and watched many of my colleagues (all of whom were excellent at networking) get good gigs and opportunities. As soon as I realized I was undervaluing networking, I made a correction, and subsequently have had a much more satisfying life as a musician.
I've worked almost a dozen jobs and internships. Starting from mowing lawns in high school, every single one was at least partly attributable to knowing someone.
I've just written a book. (It's about social implications of a technology.) Pretty much all the sales I'm making are networking, one way or another. It's a good book! People who read it love it! But it's self-published, and I haven't worked out how the heck to get people to write about it, and so my sales are all word of mouth from happy readers. It's just become a college textbook (!!) so I'm doing at least something right ...
Writing it was the same. I posted the whole draft to my Facebook in chunks, and this improved it amazingly, because my friends, like yours, are querulous nerds, and my goodness a querulous nerd given permission to be as querulous as they like, well. But I'm 50, and I've spent a few decades accumulating hundreds of contacts who are smart people who are experts in things that I'm not. And I totally relied on them to make this not suck.
I'm a huge nerd. But even my beep-boop sysadmin day job is, frankly, 50% public relations and getting people to do stuff because they feel they should because I asked nicely. Networking.
When I started, I too was bereft of network. But my first IT job was courtesy ... networking! And my second. And my third.
tl;dr Do your damnedest to be a social supernode. Make sure you know everyone, such that if you don't then you'll know someone who does. And keep in touch with them. It'll pay off big down the line.
(I went through Facebook last week and visited the pages of every one of the 1000+ people I have friended, to say hi and see what they were up to. Don't trust The Algorithm to maintain your relationships.)
I can attribute a lot of my professional value to my professional and even personal network. I've found they key is to network before you need to network so you're not always looking for something. That way you can look for ways to provide value and serve your network. That's how you build solid relationships.
Networking is a system for making connections. Desirable connections are relatively rare. The pool of people networking is full of people trying to make desirable connections but has a small amount of people whom are desirable to network with. The more people there are "trying to network," the fewer desirable connections as a percentage of total connections there will be, assuming an even remotely chaotic coupling.
I've met a lot (a lot) of people who I would have no interest networking with. I'm sure for more valuable targets, the number is orders of magnitude higher.
> "And don’t feel pressure to go to networking events. No one really mixes at mixers. Although we plan to meet new people, we usually end up hanging out with old friends."
Well yes, if you choose to. I wish the article could keep the focus of the positive effects that creating great things leads to, and not try to position it as an opposite of networking.
Networking is gold. Networkers that also produce extraordinary things will get even better results.
Some of the other comments here focus on the poor examples of networking.
What about the larger point: that networking is an effect of achievement, not a cause.
If the author is correct, even "good" networking is not as effective as making something worth making. (I assume that this "maker" bias is intuitively appealing to the larger HN community.)
Not necessarily. You can do great networking without having built anything.
Say you are a student. Some startup founder starts a business where she targets college students. You like her business. You then reach out to her telling her you are emailing all students in your dept via internal dept email list or FB groups to let them know about her startup.
That's great networking. That person will help you in future for sure. And you haven't really built anything yet.
>> In Study 1, White and Asian nonnative speakers using the same scripted responses as native speakers were found to be significantly less likely to be recommended for a middle-management position, and this bias was fully mediated by assessments of their political skill.
>> Nonnative speakers were found to have a significantly lower likelihood of receiving new-venture funding
That's an interesting bias, I wonder if/how it varies by accents, as those can be quite different. Are foreign accents from countries where English is still a major language like U.K., Australia, India, ..., perceived differently than foreign accents from non english-speaking countries?
If anything, this article only highlights the fact that it's very difficult to get the attention of investors. It demonstrates how important networking has become but I do understand the point about 'empty connections' - I've tried the cold approach in the past.
What it says basically is that you have to be really talented first and have done a lot of work... After that all you can do is wait and hope that you get lucky; try to network slowly but don't try too hard to the point of scaring away investors.
In my case, I started an open source project, it's somewhat popular within its niche - To most people it means nothing at all but on a few occasions I met people who knew about my project and when I told them about my work their eyes lit up and they treated me quite positively (E.g. they try to hire me).
This is a very interesting piece and true as well but with a catch.
The article seems to advising students not to Network and just focus on building a product or a solution that is worthy of attention. But if you read it carefully, it actually not saying so. The title itself says that Networking is overrated, it doesn't say it's useless.
To build a strong Network a combination of three things are needed:
#1: Character - How you treat others
#2: Competence - How good you are at something
#3: Consistency - How are you able to stay connect with your network
This article is about the second element of competence, it not reducing the value of other two, rather is advising students not to reduce the value of competence.
All three have equal weight and if students start to rely just on networking, they may struggle. That is a fair point.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|8 years ago|reply
This is something that I wished I had understood way earlier in my career. Basically that cause and effect are often inverted when people talk about the network effect. People who do some thing well, or are passionate about, often will accumulate a network of others who are interested in that same thing. And because they know a bunch of people who are also interested in that thing, when they hit a roadblock or a problem they have people they can reach out to for help or insights.
What is hard is discovery which is to say that the greatest programmer in the world who sits in his shack and writes perfect code that is beautiful and functional, is invisible.
There is a joke about the guy who complains "I make no money at all from stocks." and the friend says "What stocks do you own?" and the complainer responds "Oh I don't own any stocks, have no use for them, I just want money from them."
Attention and focus is like 'money from stocks' if you share what you're doing and your understanding with people you give them some advantage and perhaps some new understanding. That advantage comes back in the form of referrals or opportunities that you were not present to see when the person you shared with recognizes an opportunity as something you would be interested in. It also allows you to be "discovered" two or three hops down the road when someone says "Oh I know someone who is interested in that ..."
[+] [-] nerdponx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gertef|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitL|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] appleiigs|8 years ago|reply
Especially very early in the career. A new grad will have top school, top grades, but one will have worked at McDonald's and the other at Burger King, a third at Wendy's. With people looking so similar, you'll need to decide on less meaningful stuff like who's recommended the applicant and trivia questions. One job I applied to had 1000 resumes, interviews for 100, full day interviews for 25, and hired 2. The 2 had family members who were CEO/Chairman level clients to firm.
For tech, there has been amazing amount of entrepreneurship where meritocracy rules, but for the big organizations it will be "who you know".
[+] [-] afarrell|8 years ago|reply
Its not about who you know either.
Its about whom you can trust to solve problems and decide wisely -- It always has been and until there is a clearly rational way to evaluate trustworthiness to do an ambiguous job, it always will be.
[+] [-] davidgerard|8 years ago|reply
No, I think this isn't the case. It certainly hasn't in the past couple of decades, unless you're thinking ridiculously further back. Even then, have you ever asked your mates "hey, do you know X, are they any good?"
[+] [-] Jun8|8 years ago|reply
Nowadays, when I get a chance to mentor younglings my main point is that networking is a HUGE part of success (other important point being not to waste time on a PhD, but that's another topic). As with any effort you have to learn how to do it, of course. Harassing people for their contact info, etc. is a networking anti pattern.
[+] [-] mjw1007|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tejaswidp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SkyMarshal|8 years ago|reply
But thoughtfully targeted networking where you're able to identify a small number of people who have something of unique value to you, and then bring something of similar value to them, resulting in a potential mutually high-value collaboration, is not overrated.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jknoepfler|8 years ago|reply
Networking, in the sense of maintaining strong professional relationships and having a presence at professional events, creates a strong passive upwards pressure for someone who is talented. If you "spring to mind" as someone I can trust to "do X," or if you spring into the mind of the person I task with finding someone to "do X," then you are that much more likely to be offered the opportunity to "do X".
You may find the same kinds of "do X" opportunities through other means, but as X becomes increasingly specialized and requires more trust, networking becomes more and more important. For example, I can mass broadcast an ad for entry-level Java developers. I cannot do that to find a systems architect to design a high uptime, low latency, massive throughout web service. I'm likely to go to a short list for the latter and avoid interviews completely, if at all possible.
Obviously accomplishments are important. Accomplishment one of the foundations of a strong professional identity. Without evidence of your abilities, networking won't put you on anyone's short list. That's a catch-22, and you also need luck and the ability to inspire someone to take a chance on you to get your foot in the door. Both of those are improved dramatically by networking.
[+] [-] vacri|8 years ago|reply
I found the same. Cold-calling and party tricks (like dropping businesscards into bags) is not 'networking'. It's one aspect of it, yes, but a minor one.
Not to mention that plenty of us know people who are awesome at their craft, yet never seem to get anywhere with it. Arguing from outliers like major pop stars means nothing for the 'real' people below them.
[+] [-] davidgerard|8 years ago|reply
Yeah, to build a lifelong network you need to get people to like you. This means you have to have something likable about you.
(I mean, I can be a huge arse and I've managed it, per other comment. If I can anyone can.)
[+] [-] fnbr|8 years ago|reply
In every job I have, I try to grab lunch with people everyday so that I can talk to them and get to know them. I also try to regularly meet new people in my field and get to know them. I've found that to be extremely valuable.
However, I've found going to networking events to be an extreme waste of time. The people who go usually aren't the successful professionals, which is who I want to meet. I've found going for drinks with friends- and their friends- to be much more valuable.
[+] [-] antisthenes|8 years ago|reply
How do you become a successful professional if you're never given the opportunity to earn trust where it is also visible enough to develop a strong network?
[+] [-] dsacco|8 years ago|reply
This article opens with a strong claim and several distasteful examples of desperate behavior associated with networking. But I wouldn't consider those "networking" in the general sense of the word; rather they are one stunt-based manifestation of it. Contrary to the article's point, you do not need to abandon networking to focus on being so good that you're attention getting. The examples given - Bieber and Adele being "found" through raw wow factor - do not resemble the way that networking organically occurs in the real world, and are very dependent on luck. Bieber and Adele would still be impressive successes if they had networked for it, and indeed the article concedes that many successful startup founders had a pre-established network in addition to their skillsets.
I think there's too much baggage attached to the idea of networking. You don't want to try and network as though it is a high-pressure sales tactic. Instead, focus on developing social skills and charisma. You also don't need to wait until you are extraordinary to network with people. There's no guideline for networking because there doesn't need to be one, it arises organically if you talk with people who have the same interests. There's another principle I have found with regards to networking - it is better to prioritize network quantity instead of quality. You want a minimum "quality" per contact, for sure, but you will find that access to extremely high quality contacts emerges in your network once you've hit a critical mass of people you can email on a first name basis (for example). If you're constantly trying to "collect" high-impact contacts without bootstrapping your way towards it organically, you'll be more pressured to pull the inane antics the article talks about.
In other words, and for practical advice: people seriously overthink networking and these examples of e.g. pitching a VC at an open mic event are not examples of organic networking. Just talk to people for the sake of talking to people. I have had incredible opportunities come to me and met awesome people because I wrote insightful Hacker News or reddit comments. Whenever I can I try to email someone who is talking about something I'm interested in.
[+] [-] zebraflask|8 years ago|reply
Really? If you're around unpleasant people, sure, but I at least have typically enjoyed meeting new people in the industry. "Networking" is just another word for "having a conversation."
The implication of this piece is unclear to me. Most people, by definition, are average and aren't going to suddenly pop out masterpiece whatevers that bring them fame and fortune. You'd think a little networking wouldn't hurt. It's better than staying at home and staring at the TV, right?
[+] [-] etjossem|8 years ago|reply
Tip for writers: if you can use the same data to just as reasonably arrive at the opposite conclusion - "we want to feel clean and presentable before impressing other people" - then don't present your vague conjecture as fact. The article started to lose me as soon as I read this part. It was like a red flag of bad journalism went up.
People who have something to show for themselves find networking easier than people who are faking it? Sure, I believe that, but that's hardly news.
[+] [-] pcsanwald|8 years ago|reply
Waiting for a music exec or manager to somehow hear your work is a terrible strategy. On average, if you wait around to be discovered, you'll be waiting a long time.
In music, networking is hugely important to being successful. Going to people's gigs, meeting others, and similar was hugely important for me to establish myself as a working musician when I moved across the country last year. But, effective networking is most necessary and productive in "gig" type economies.
In tech, meetups and such aren't always great networking opportunities because the way most technical people collaborate is in the work environment, and most people change jobs rarely. Contrast this with most musical relationships, where it's much easier to exchange information and call a new person for a gig, which happens many times per week usually.
I'm sensitive to this because early in my music career, I severely undervalued the value of networking, and watched many of my colleagues (all of whom were excellent at networking) get good gigs and opportunities. As soon as I realized I was undervaluing networking, I made a correction, and subsequently have had a much more satisfying life as a musician.
[+] [-] kelukelugames|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidgerard|8 years ago|reply
Writing it was the same. I posted the whole draft to my Facebook in chunks, and this improved it amazingly, because my friends, like yours, are querulous nerds, and my goodness a querulous nerd given permission to be as querulous as they like, well. But I'm 50, and I've spent a few decades accumulating hundreds of contacts who are smart people who are experts in things that I'm not. And I totally relied on them to make this not suck.
I'm a huge nerd. But even my beep-boop sysadmin day job is, frankly, 50% public relations and getting people to do stuff because they feel they should because I asked nicely. Networking.
When I started, I too was bereft of network. But my first IT job was courtesy ... networking! And my second. And my third.
tl;dr Do your damnedest to be a social supernode. Make sure you know everyone, such that if you don't then you'll know someone who does. And keep in touch with them. It'll pay off big down the line.
(I went through Facebook last week and visited the pages of every one of the 1000+ people I have friended, to say hi and see what they were up to. Don't trust The Algorithm to maintain your relationships.)
[+] [-] grzm|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] jventura|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bretts89|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Klockan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] debacle|8 years ago|reply
Networking is a system for making connections. Desirable connections are relatively rare. The pool of people networking is full of people trying to make desirable connections but has a small amount of people whom are desirable to network with. The more people there are "trying to network," the fewer desirable connections as a percentage of total connections there will be, assuming an even remotely chaotic coupling.
I've met a lot (a lot) of people who I would have no interest networking with. I'm sure for more valuable targets, the number is orders of magnitude higher.
[+] [-] devdad|8 years ago|reply
Well yes, if you choose to. I wish the article could keep the focus of the positive effects that creating great things leads to, and not try to position it as an opposite of networking.
Networking is gold. Networkers that also produce extraordinary things will get even better results.
[+] [-] projectramo|8 years ago|reply
What about the larger point: that networking is an effect of achievement, not a cause.
If the author is correct, even "good" networking is not as effective as making something worth making. (I assume that this "maker" bias is intuitively appealing to the larger HN community.)
[+] [-] neerkumar|8 years ago|reply
Say you are a student. Some startup founder starts a business where she targets college students. You like her business. You then reach out to her telling her you are emailing all students in your dept via internal dept email list or FB groups to let them know about her startup.
That's great networking. That person will help you in future for sure. And you haven't really built anything yet.
[+] [-] vmarsy|8 years ago|reply
>> In Study 1, White and Asian nonnative speakers using the same scripted responses as native speakers were found to be significantly less likely to be recommended for a middle-management position, and this bias was fully mediated by assessments of their political skill.
>> Nonnative speakers were found to have a significantly lower likelihood of receiving new-venture funding
That's an interesting bias, I wonder if/how it varies by accents, as those can be quite different. Are foreign accents from countries where English is still a major language like U.K., Australia, India, ..., perceived differently than foreign accents from non english-speaking countries?
[1] http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-28924-001
[+] [-] jondubois|8 years ago|reply
What it says basically is that you have to be really talented first and have done a lot of work... After that all you can do is wait and hope that you get lucky; try to network slowly but don't try too hard to the point of scaring away investors.
In my case, I started an open source project, it's somewhat popular within its niche - To most people it means nothing at all but on a few occasions I met people who knew about my project and when I told them about my work their eyes lit up and they treated me quite positively (E.g. they try to hire me).
[+] [-] pathpari|8 years ago|reply
The article seems to advising students not to Network and just focus on building a product or a solution that is worthy of attention. But if you read it carefully, it actually not saying so. The title itself says that Networking is overrated, it doesn't say it's useless.
To build a strong Network a combination of three things are needed:
#1: Character - How you treat others #2: Competence - How good you are at something #3: Consistency - How are you able to stay connect with your network
This article is about the second element of competence, it not reducing the value of other two, rather is advising students not to reduce the value of competence.
All three have equal weight and if students start to rely just on networking, they may struggle. That is a fair point.
Good piece.
Paritosh Pathak Strategic Networking Coach